Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Chai

June 17, 2009

J & J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC., PLAINTIFF,
v.
CORAZON CRUZ CHAI, ET AL, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge

SCHEDULING ORDER (Fed.R.Civ.P 16) Discovery Deadlines: Initial Disclosures: July 1, 2009 Non-Expert: December 11, 2009 Expert Disclosure: January 8, 2010 Supp.Expert Discl: January 22, 2010 Expert Discovery: March 12, 2010 Motion Deadlines: Non-Dispositive: April 2, 2010 Dispositive: May 7, 2010 Settlement Conference: August 18, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. Courtroom 10 (GSA), 6th Floor Pre-Trial Conference: July 7, 2010 at 8:30 a.m. Courtroom 2 (AWI), 8th Floor Trial: August 24, 2010 at 8:30 a.m.

Date of Scheduling Conference

June 16, 2009.

The Court notes that Plaintiff filed a "Unilateral Scheduling Conference Statement." (See Doc. 10.)

I. Identification of the Parties/Nature of Claims

Plaintiff J & J Sports Productions, Inc., a closed-circuit distributor of sports and entertainment programming, claims that Defendant Corazon Cruz Chai, individually and d/b/a Inang's Tapsi & BBQ, exhibited the "Unfinished Business": Manny Pacquiao v. Juan Manuel Marquez II, WBS Super Featherweight Championship Fight Program of March 15, 2008 (hereinafter "Program") at the establishment the Defendant was operating known as "Inang's Tapsi & BBQ" without the necessary closed-circuit (commercial) license they were required to obtain from the Plaintiff.

II. Bases of Jurisdiction and Venue

The instant suit provides for federal question jurisdiction. Violations of two (2) federal telecommunications statutes (47 USC 553, et seq., and 47 USC 605 et seq.) are alleged in the complaint. A common law count of Conversion is also set forth in the complaint. The Court has pendant jurisdiction of this claim.

Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 605, et seq., venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, in Fresno, because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this Division of this District.

III. Consent to the Magistrate Judge

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (c), the parties have not consented in writing to conduct all further proceedings in this case, including trial, before the Honorable Gary S. Austin, U.S. Magistrate Judge.

IV. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Dates

The parties shall complete initial disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 on or before July 1, 2009. The parties are ordered to complete all discovery pertaining to non-experts on or before December 11, 2009.

The parties are directed to disclose all expert witnesses, in writing, on or before January 8, 2010. The parties shall also disclose all supplemental experts on or before January 22, 2010. The written designation of experts shall be made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 26(a)(2)(A) and (B) and shall include all information required thereunder. Failure to designate experts in compliance with this order may result in the Court ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.